Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can psychedelics make you a better person?

philosophyforlife.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 115 posts

Re: Can psychedelics make you a better person?

#91

Post by Nomentatus »

arca_vorago wrote: post #37
Jefro118 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LSD doesn't have CIA origins, it's effects were discovered accidentally by Albert Hoffman. The CIA later commandeered research around LSD in order to look into how it could help train military personnel and also potentially be used as a weapon (while also stopping the research that was being done on its usefulness for therapy and creative problem solving). LSD is indeed more potent than some naturally occuring psyche…

I wasn't saying the CIA was it's discoverer, but rather it is the one that pushed LSD as part of the counter-culture movement of the 60's, which included experimentation on people (often without them knowing) in mkultra/artichoke programs and more. A quote from Timothy Leary: "I give the CIA total credit for sponsoring and initiating the entire conciousness movemenet, counter-culture events of the 1960's." As for why…

Usually synthetic forms of any molecule are dangerous or have side effects the natural form doesn't because both the left and right-hand mirror forms of the molecule are present, in equal quantities, in the synthetic product. It's only recently that we've been able to separate and discard one form to create synthetics that are of only one-handedness. A new, better zyrtec (drug for allergies) that's come on the market in the last couple of years is one example. https://www.famousscientists.org/two-centuries-of-right-and-...

This is why synthetic perfumes are so extraordinarily dangerous for people with asthma, and cause several times as many deaths each year in Isreal as terrorism does, but natural scents are almost always fine. (It is possible to have dangerous allergic reactions to natural scents, too, causing severe edema and death, but this is far more rare.) Only tobacco is close to the same level of risk for asthmatics.

Of course, other forms of contamination are also possible, not to mention that other chemicals in the natural plant may be modifying the effect or compensating for side effects.

Re: Can psychedelics make you a better person?

#92

Post by dragonwriter »

Nomentatus wrote: post #89
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author is from the UK, so they are probably using the British definition of corn[1] which can refer to many different kinds of grain. Using that definition of corn, the article doesn't seem to be inaccurate. [1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/corn#Etymology_1

Right, remember that when Middle English was around, the New World hadn't been discovered, so the word definitely was not applied to maize originally. This British usage still remains in place as far as I know. Those darned Brits - you'd think they invented the language, the way they sling it around any way they want!

> Right, remember that when Middle English was around, the New World hadn't been discovered

Well, Middle English starts a couple centuries after the Norse settlement in North America, so that's not strictly true, even with the implict “by Europeans” restriction.

Re: Can psychedelics make you a better person?

#93

Post by HIPisTheAnswer »

gnulinux wrote: post #88
HIPisTheAnswer wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "LSD can't make you crazy if you weren't in the first place" It can't. There have been some very good research done which show that the society we currently live in is completely insane, which implies that almost anyone living in this society is mad. I really enjoyed 'Characer analysis' by Wilhelm Reich - very good stuff - in which he showed that the facist society we live in has turned us against ourselves. LSD an…

> Did you friend have a very rich sexual life when the incident happend? I'm not asking you to answer here obviously, but I'm almost certain he did not. No I don't think he had sex before that incident. But how would that affect his trip. As I wrote above, his first trip (which was about 6 months before the second one) was really fun for him.

You can read the book I mentioned, it's all in there.

Re: Can psychedelics make you a better person?

#94

Post by Nomentatus »

dragonwriter wrote: post #92
Nomentatus wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, remember that when Middle English was around, the New World hadn't been discovered, so the word definitely was not applied to maize originally. This British usage still remains in place as far as I know. Those darned Brits - you'd think they invented the language, the way they sling it around any way they want!

> Right, remember that when Middle English was around, the New World hadn't been discovered Well, Middle English starts a couple centuries after the Norse settlement in North America, so that's not strictly true, even with the implict “by Europeans” restriction.

Point taken, and worth noting, the English hadn't discovered the New World, but other Europeans, including Portugal, had. But maize wasn't grown anything like that far north!!! Maybe as far north as Missouri, where there were dense populations, but not further. So, yes, it is strictly true that maize would be unknown in England then.

But c'mon man, "the Oxford English Dictionary specifies the period of 1150 to 1500" so when the usage was established in England only Vikings had reached the New World, in Newfoundland, etc.

Re: Can psychedelics make you a better person?

#95

Post by hopejoy1 »

Thanks to dr luke for helping me get pregnant within 2 weeks after using the herbal drugs he prescribe and sent to me. I am now a proud mother of twins after doctors old me i could never get pregnant again in my life. Me and my husband are foever greatfull. I feel the need to tell everyone in my situation to help solve their problem. You can email him now at DRLUKE001@GMAIL.COM and get change your life forever

Re: Can psychedelics make you a better person?

#96

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

thrwwy1 wrote: post #50
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my completely inexpert perspective, and keeping in mind I've never taken any psychedelics, I'd guess that 'ego-busting' as you call it is almost certainly the component of value here. Our traditional notions of self are ridiculously naive and very poorly model reality, and I think working from poor models of reality is part of why we suffer like we do, which leads us to being worse people. Psychedelics allow peo…

> Psychedelics allow people to more easily shift their perspective This is a fairly accurate summary, from my personal experience. Psychedelics help to partially peel back the immense layers of mental models and perspectives that we slowly build up over the many years of our life. These layers are usually fairly inscrutable -- most people don't think about them much. As the mental model of one's self is perhaps the m…

> it can feel as if the most simple thought is deeply profund -- so this is something one has to watch out for, if they care about genuine insight.

Maybe I've gone off the deep end, but I think a lot of the deepest and most meaningful truths I've realized are actually tautological. It's as though it's all just one giant circle, you start with a simple tautological statement like "it is what it is" and think it's silly, spend years thinking about, observing, and modeling reality, and come to the profound conclusion that it is indeed what it is. The only difference is that having walked the circle and observed the statement from all sides you finally understand what it means.

I'm starting to wonder if all truths aren't tautologies. Take evolution: in very simple form it could be stated as "Things that self-replicate self-replicate. Things that are better at it are better at it".

Re: Can psychedelics make you a better person?

#97

Post by dragonwriter »

Nomentatus wrote: post #94
dragonwriter wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Right, remember that when Middle English was around, the New World hadn't been discovered Well, Middle English starts a couple centuries after the Norse settlement in North America, so that's not strictly true, even with the implict “by Europeans” restriction.

Point taken, and worth noting, the English hadn't discovered the New World, but other Europeans, including Portugal, had. But maize wasn't grown anything like that far north!!! Maybe as far north as Missouri, where there were dense populations, but not further. So, yes, it is strictly true that maize would be unknown in England then. But c'mon man, "the Oxford English Dictionary specifies the period of 1150 to 1500"…

> So, yes, it is strictly true that maize would be unknown in England then.

Yes, it's strictly true that maize would (almost certainly) be unknown, just not because North America hadn't been discovered by cultures in contact with England prior to the point of time in question.

Re: Can psychedelics make you a better person?

#98

Post by tree_of_item »

goo wrote: post #90
tree_of_item wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter if it's illegal. Psilocybin and MDMA are illegal but there's research being done there. Microdosing is homeopathy because of the emphasis on "sub-perceptual" doses. There's no such thing, when it comes to psychedelics. You either perceive it, or it didn't work. Fadiman could do blind testing to try to prove me wrong, but he won't. Why not? I'm sure there are lots of people who report "benefits" from…

Homeopathy and 3% of a standard dose of one of world's strongest drugs are very very different things. Even setting aside the massive, proven, perceptual effect that placebos have -- which means that if you do believe in homeopathy, it could actually have a strong effect -- this is analogous to saying that a couple of sips of beer is going to do "jack shit". It won't do much -- but your liver will still process it, a…

Beer commonly comes in 8oz cans. 8oz is about 237mL, 3% of which is about 7mL. I would absolutely say that 7mL of beer is going to do jack shit.

The experience of the subject is linked directly to obvious perception. If it isn't affecting perception, it's not affecting experience! It could affect other things, like your liver or whatever, but it really does need to affect your perception in order to have the benefits people claim microdosing has, which are all linked to moment-to-moment experience.

Re: Can psychedelics make you a better person?

#99

Post by goo »

tree_of_item wrote: post #98
goo wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homeopathy and 3% of a standard dose of one of world's strongest drugs are very very different things. Even setting aside the massive, proven, perceptual effect that placebos have -- which means that if you do believe in homeopathy, it could actually have a strong effect -- this is analogous to saying that a couple of sips of beer is going to do "jack shit". It won't do much -- but your liver will still process it, a…

Beer commonly comes in 8oz cans. 8oz is about 237mL, 3% of which is about 7mL. I would absolutely say that 7mL of beer is going to do jack shit. The experience of the subject is linked directly to obvious perception. If it isn't affecting perception, it's not affecting experience! It could affect other things, like your liver or whatever, but it really does need to affect your perception in order to have the benefits…

I was basing my analogy on the idea that a standard dose of beer, for someone drinking beer, is probably 2 12 oz. bottles of beer.

"If it isn't affecting perception, it's not affecting experience!" I think this is the main point on which we disagree. I'm curious why you assert this so strongly.

If we agree that there is an effect on the nervous system, then the question is, at what point does that effect "matter". And you are saying that it only matters at the point that the subject can detect the shift in their own perception from baseline. You also argue that any purported benefits of the substance are only realized as a result of the detection in this change of state.

I can think of a few examples of cases where we would not be consciously aware of a change from baseline, but would effect our experience. Do you need to be aware of your change from baseline for the painkilling and pleasantness of endorphins released after a mild walk to have an effect? Do you need to be aware of your own difference from psychological baseline for the little bit adrenaline released before an important meeting to have an effect on your alertness?

Our recognition of our own perception is a fallible signal detector. There can be effects on the nervous system that have effects on other systems, regardless of whether the conscious mind detects a signal.

And if you agree with me so far, then the question is if the effect on the nervous system and in turn its effects on other internal systems has any therapeutic effect. That's a different discussion, I reckon. But unless a requirement of all the purported therapeutic effect is that the subject has consciously observed their altered perception, then it is possible for there to be an effect on people's lives from sub-perceptual doses of chemicals. (for example: non-psychoactive drugs, heavy metals, viruses, etc.)

Re: Can psychedelics make you a better person?

#100

Post by Nomentatus »

dragonwriter wrote: post #97
Nomentatus wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point taken, and worth noting, the English hadn't discovered the New World, but other Europeans, including Portugal, had. But maize wasn't grown anything like that far north!!! Maybe as far north as Missouri, where there were dense populations, but not further. So, yes, it is strictly true that maize would be unknown in England then. But c'mon man, "the Oxford English Dictionary specifies the period of 1150 to 1500"…

> So, yes, it is strictly true that maize would be unknown in England then. Yes, it's strictly true that maize would (almost certainly) be unknown, just not because North America hadn't been discovered by cultures in contact with England prior to the point of time in question.

You could simply have said "we now agree," I believe.
Post reply on HN